• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Section of Statute 6108 (Philly) and "a city of the first class"

Pwning the Papacy

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2006
Messages
25
Location
, ,
imported post

6108. Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia. No person shall carry a firearm, rifle or shotgun at any time upon the public streets or upon any public property in a city of the first class unless: 1. such person is licensed to carry a firearm; or 2. such person is exempt from licensing under section 6106(b) of this title (relating to firearms not to be carried without a license).

A question about "a city of the first class" -- people like to think that is specifies a type of city, yet the title clearly specifies one city: could class mean classification, essentially, where the classification is the single city of Philadelphia? Where is there a legal definition of "a city of the first class"? 6102 doesn't define it!
Okay, the above notion is ridiculous based on finding other "a city of the first class" mentions, but my question now is:
Isn't this statute vague or ambiguous to the point of being very easily overturned?

If Pittsburgh becomes 'a city of the first class', I could be arrested for open carry and given a charge of Carrying firearms on public streets or public property in Philadelphia having never set foot in Philly.

Another question: does a statute title have any legal affect on the nature of the law it proceeds to describe? If not, "Isn't this statute vague or ambiguous to the point of being very easily overturned?" may be easily invalidated.
 

Steve in PA

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2006
Messages
158
Location
Somewhere in PA
imported post

If Pittsburgh becomes a city of the first class the law will be re-written and or another one to include Pittsburgh will be added.
 

knight0334

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
52
Location
Brookville, Pennsylvania, USA
imported post

[align=left]Last I heard, Pittsburgh's population has dropped and is continuing to drop.

[/align]
[align=left]334,563 residents. ...about 1/3 of the legal requirement of 1,000,000 to be defined a City of the First Class.[/align]
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
imported post

Pwning the Papacy wrote:
A question about "a city of the first class" -- people like to think that is specifies a type of city, yet the title clearly specifies one city: could class mean classification, essentially, where the classification is the single city of Philadelphia? Where is there a legal definition of "a city of the first class"? 6102 doesn't define it!
See 53 P. S. § 101 - a city of the first class has at least 1,000,000 people.
 

exceltoexcel

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2006
Messages
88
Location
, ,
imported post

The "title" of a law can arguably be said to have no meaning whatsoever.

We have a law titled

§ 6106. Firearms not to be carried without a license.
(a) Offense defined.--Any person who carries a firearm in any vehicle or any person who carries a firearm concealed on or about his person, except in his place of abode or fixed place of business, without a valid and lawfully issued license under this chapter commits a felony of the third degree.

(b) Exceptions.--The provisions of subsection (a) shall not apply to:

Note the title says one thing the defination is something entirely different.

The title could be changed to

Pink hats not to be worn

However if the definition said Blue hats are not to be worn within the city limits, the pink hats could be but blue hats would get you in trouble.
 
Top